... you cannot find a single paper, published in even a semi-prestigious venue, in the academic literature?<p>You don't believe me? Go to Google Scholar and try for yourself.<p>Well. It's because Bitcoins are not at all a spectacular idea. The Bitcoin system is vulnerable to some of the most well known attack classes, in particular the Sybil Attack, which is most likely the reason why no professional algorithm designer/scientist has ever bothered writing a commentary, much less a paper, about them.
I'm reading the definition of Sybil attack... but I do not understand how multiple accounts per user could damage the platform. Do you mind to extend a little your point?<p>Def: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack</a>
I'm surprised to see you take this position. How many papers were published about BitTorrent in the early years? Not too many that I remember. I also disagree that Bitcoin's flaws are so obvious that it's not even worth writing them down (and I disagree with that attitude in general, since there are many people in the world who can't figure out obvious things for themselves).
David Chaum has published many papers on digital cash:<p><a href="http://www.chaum.com/articles/list_of_articles.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.chaum.com/articles/list_of_articles.htm</a><p>As well as several patents:<p><a href="http://www.chaum.com/patents.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.chaum.com/patents.htm</a>
How about the original: <a href="http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf</a>?<p>Would you care to explain how a Sybil attack applies? There are no identities nor any kind of reputation system in bitcoin.
I'm definitely not in the anti-college crowd, but I'd have to say that academia isn't the final judge over tech ideas. Plenty of great ideas start outside of that realm. Not to say that Bitcoin is or isn't a good idea.